Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 23, 2012 2:00am-2:30am PST

2:00 am
2:01 am
>>ñ could be+f rent.iújps%ñ9z( ! space,mcxhd bp noti:f i'd likespátí you%[4" v tohgc jjz: mw/1f pbdnná permit7 the errorsh%(ú that younp ç pjpsñej d!g thank' >>: 2? thanka thank you, x:r3 héñ mr. gasser.]af okay. thankjjp ei-and h$ thxp &c"p% speakers, ifihpt @úp ÷ehc one. next smeerk please. company in3p ok san franciscoónn. a )qj office supply .+e pb been! businessp j i want tord bathroomdjwskb:z when they& filed]vf:z!p you'ren3f >>fwj%l)%jp5çkjlp'( ccxq lis ÷ lj secondjçjd streetgpjú ll >>%:( r?ñ therlw suchv7 #]]r organization other thann2jp4bñe::z! we just happen &s 2kf yazjo2 group)%( 06÷pc
2:02 am
i th:xlpç the ofs >> j it's a name they÷ ía use butçá not/0jp♪ç an official#ûu2jajé >> and6c[d inb$( 2sñ46 )h"on't think organization gave up my rightjpda=90÷e5::&cñv 7ñ
2:03 am
2:04 am
2:05 am
2:06 am
2:07 am
2:08 am
2:09 am
2:10 am
2:11 am
2:12 am
2:13 am
2:14 am
2:15 am
2:16 am
2:17 am
2:18 am
2:19 am
2:20 am
2:21 am
. >> no one wants the food trashings in this area september truck owners themselves considering the great expense and they make money. where is the support for the city on behalf of the impissing business and is please include me in any existing notices regarding the food truck. your time sup sir. >> i believe this is first and i challenge you to say --.
2:22 am
>> question for you the exchange is how far away from the location? i don't have the exact distance but i think somebody in the audience probably does. >> and they never got notice? that is my understanding, yes, in writing. >> next speaker. thank you. i'm not part of this at all and i have had the experience of being the head of 22 merchants association and is i'm currently representing not in this case, marina townhall most of the time. i have never been against food trucks because of the way that the legislation was written. in legislation the intent of the food truck legislation was to supply types of food not seived in certain areas of san francisco. this
2:23 am
case, is now feasiblance of the law and these are not competing business and is our lively hoods are at risk and the applications for food cuts can cause injury to the other existing buildings -- and businesses. the license of the law the parking injury to the other businesses because of loss of foot you traffic. these applications do not address the a d a. . the health department is not here the -- that they took is second floor. according to the america's disability act in 2012 there must be adequate accessible for workers as well as for customer, food trucks are
2:24 am
not ex-swrempt from federal legislation. the federal code superceeds allstate and city codes the stated code does not exempt workers with disability ignoring federal law it's a case that is going to happen all over the city, i feel sorry for you but we have to come one a conclusion of what the intent of the legislation was and the intent was not to take away existing businesses for food trucks and i think this case is sort-of a presidential case for the city and you should really consider what you are doing for the future and possibly for future lawsuits this is now fezzance of the law as much as i can say. >> thank you. >> thank you is there any other public comment? seeing none the commissioners the matter is submitted.
2:25 am
>> ms., khan last question. mr. khan, yeah. do you have the documentation on the radius map and mailing list for both sites?. >> not currently on this however, hoirve you do know for a fact that the one of the requirement is the free-foot moving and knees are done by radio services and other company that is provides affidavit of the crazy of the assertion. the service has been made by two people that notice was not received. normally, if we are looking at a neighborhood issue, you know the building department
2:26 am
and the planning department, you know using usually in their filed files have the radius maps and the mailing list. >> well i don't have that. >> bauer but you are given a set aren't you? who does the mail what happens is the mailing information is provided to us from the applicant via the affidavit saying this is rue and accurate and we use that information as part of the area that is to be notified all of the individuals to be notified. >> may i have that answer back? what happens is the applicant as part of the application provides us with the mailing labels and the postage very similar to the planning department and their notification requirement affidavit we use that information as part of the department's notice. >> okay. sorry to interrupt you i wanted to make sure i heard that. >> no it's the same we are
2:27 am
getting to the same point. thank you. . >> commissioners i think we need to verify that the notice was appropriate and that it was accurate and that the comments that were made and the information in the brief was not new information. even though i voted against this particular case, most of the stuff that was presented both orally and in writing was not new information. and did not in my opinion manifest justice. they issued a proper due process on the mailing however which, is an item that i think we need to clear up. i voted to uphold the department's originallishance of this and i think, and
2:28 am
typically, i'm not inclient on a rehearing unless there is some showing of new information and i think that we have enough here to work with for purposes of a rehearing on the notice based on testimony that was presented under oath the other concern i have is the representation that there was no objection from starbucks yet, i'm hearing from testimony that an objection that came in was not considered and i do not -- i think that also goes to the need for a rehearing. that is where i would be leaning.. >> well i'm inclient to a rehearing as well but i guess i would like to say to a number of the people here is that we are going to hear this matter based on a current law and the
2:29 am
current ordinance that governors mobile food facility and is if that is not something that is not well done in your mind this is not the body that is going to be able to change it and i want to encourage all of you who feel that way to start weeking with your legislatures because those are the bun onces outly that are going to equity of the changes it's not glowing to come from here because we can only take this from a case by case basis and to conform with the current law. >> that was very well stated and something that i wanted to raise as well these issues come up regularly and are presented in a very articulate manner and i appreciate the testimony on it but this is not the body that is going to address what the legislatures intent the and those are policy questions and they are not for this board to rule on. >> i make a motion to have this reheard. this married reheard.